Co.Design | business + design: The misuse of the word "logo" is one of those things that gets many design-minded people practically purple-faced with anger (a sibling to debate over "fonts" v. "typefaces"). A logo, they say, is not the same as a symbol, which in turn is not the same as a combination mark.
6 comments:
So what is it a logo, symbol, or other and how does it matter. Well I can not help but thinking about how does this effect me and well I cannot really think about much of how it actually does effect me. I do imagine this matters a lot in the court of law, where a definition and the interpretation of that definition is exactly what the lawyers are trying to sway in their direction. Then this can quickly roll into trademarks, copyrights, and other legal terms that I do not know. Their will always be people who take things very seriously and need to relax a little bit. I did find it interesting enough to learn the difference, even if I really feel indifferent about the whole thing.
I think that people who get stuck on pedantic debates forget that language can evolve. Besides being a useful distinction for designers I don’t really see the point of the argument. If 99% of the people who speak English call the symbol or combination mark the logo they aren’t wrong, the definition of the word has changed. This is similar to debate on the word literally. That argument is a little more entertaining though as the word can literally mean literally, or it can mean figuratively. I think at this point people who use it to mean figuratively aren’t wrong they are just using the more recently evolved definition.
On a side note Stephen Fry gives a great talk about how he used to be a grammar nazi but at some point decided that watching language evolve is more fun than trying to stop it.
Admittedly I never knew there was difference. I thought a logo was a logo; a company’s branding. A symbol was a symbol – like a symbol for something or a symbol on map? I’ve never had the opportunity to take a course on branding, and now this article has taught me that there are “two types” of brand representation, or three if you count the combination mark. It may be pedantic but I find it very interesting. I also don’t blame those who are passionate about their art and profession to be offended or twitchy by a layman, or client not knowing or understanding the distinction – however, I’m sure they deal with that on almost a daily basis. It almost would be like someone calling a musical a play, right? Like the article says it’s important to know that there’s a distinction, especially when you need to have an educated conversation about such, which means that for educational purposes it’s even more important that the distinction continue to be taught. Meanwhile the language and definition of the word logo may be evolve for a client, it’s up to the designer to interpret their needs and how they define themselves, their company, and what a logo is. In my opinion that’s part of what makes designers such great artists. And to be honest, it does make sense when the article breaks it down. A symbol is a symbol for something (the company) and a logo is a logo-type (typeface)….what branding used to be all about. What do I mean by what branding used to be all about, I mean when Ranchers and their Cattle-hands forged iron BRANDS in the shape of a typographical representation of the name, initials or ranch “logo.” A time before a company or a ranch for that matter would think to or could use the image of an apple to sell their product or claim their property.
It's always interesting to discover new little facts about where a word comes from and the true difference between common day things that we don't even give a second thought. However, as many people have said, I don't see it making sense that people get so worked up about small discrepancies. I understand when working in an academic situation e importance of clarifying or even when working within a design firm that may work on a symbol or logo, but when looking at a blog it really seems senseless that the readers have gotten upset to the point where the writers had to clarify for everyone.
This argument is one of those issues that is only relevant to only a small population of designers and artists, but nevertheless I find it very interesting and will try to correctly identify logos, symbols, and combination marks. This is similar to a lecture I went to in which the distinction between shape and form was discussed. Does it really matter if people misuse these terms in everyday conversation? Probably not, but at the same time, as designers, we should try to use the correct terminology when describing our work. It's going to be interesting to now go out and see how people misuse these terms. The distinctions may not matter in the long run, but I am sure that I will now notice when people misuse them.
I think for most of the american public, this distinction is pretty useless, but in terms of a design discussion, it allows some important issues to surface. From a branding and marketing perspective, its been interesting over the last few years to see what companies and stores can rely solely on their symbol and which other ones actually need a logo. For instance my favorite example of this was when a bunch of starbucks a few years ago decided to get rid of the text on the sign and just keep the green lady symbol. In response they found that their traffic in the stores went down. Apparently not recognizable enough. But on the other hand if youre walking down 5th avenue in new york and you see a giant glass box with an apple symbol hanging in the middle, you instantly know exactly what that is. (and so does everyone else, judging by how crowded that store always is)
Post a Comment